Monster Knowledge - Is there a better way to do this?

[Sadrik]

By the RAW:
Monster Knowledge
Arcana – Origins: Elemental, Fey, Shadow, Types: None, Keywords: None
Dungeoneering – Origins: Aberrant, Types: None, Keywords: None
Heal - Origins: None, Types: None, Keywords: None
History – Origins: None, Types: None, Keywords: None
Nature – Origins: Natural, Types: None, Keywords: None
Religion – Origins: Immortal, Types: None, Keywords: Undead

So, looking through the MMI it appears that there are many odd ways that the RAW way plays out. For instance many undead are "natural" which means that is covered by Nature skill. Also, some animals are natural and then the upgraded version is "fey", which makes perfect sense but it is odd for how the skills work.

 

[eriktheguy]

I think some of these were assigned for balance purposes, else some skills would have no monsters to check. You could use house-rules but thats a bit of bookkeeping for no real payoff. Just ad-hoc it when it seems right. If the party wants to use religion or arcana to learn about zombies you could let them depending on the origins of the zombies.

 

[OakwoodDM]

I tend to give my players the option of which skill to use when there are two skills covering a monster (like all those natural undead), so I say "Roll Nature or Religion, whichever is higher".

I figure it checks off my two key rules:

1) It makes some degree of sense, and
2) It doesn't screw the players over for making a particular choice in Character creation.

 

[keterys]

A Nature check looks at the skeleton of an animal or humanoid and figures out its capabilities based on that and knowledge of what it was like before it died - a religion check based on direct knowledge of undead.

Arcana for shadow undead is more about how it ties to the Shadowfell and the play of magic energy powering its shadowform, while Religion still knows stuff about undead

 

[77IM]

Yeah, I also ad-hock the monster knowledge checks. For example, I allow Arcana for pretty much any magical beast, and History for many humanoids. Sometimes I give out different information based on which check succeeded.

It makes sense, it lets characters use their Knowledge skills, and it's way, way easier than remembering which skills strictly go with which keywords.

-- 77IM

 

[Sadrik]

I think ad-hocing is a way to go on this. However there could be a better definative way to do this, I am sure.

 

[kevkas]

It makes sense, it lets characters use their Knowledge skills, and it's way, way easier than remembering which skills strictly go with which keywords.-- 77IM

When I DM, I usually use the skills associated with the Lore of the monster for all its information (lore, name, type, resistances, etc.) but if I consider that another skill could be used, I just allow it. For example: the MM1 says that for Liches you have to use Religion, but SOOOO many wizards have gone through that path (historically) that using Arcana, to me, makes sense. Other examples:
-Mind Flayers > Dungeoneering (and also Arcana).
-Construcs > I think most of them call for an Arcana check, but I allow Dungeoneering as well.


Aside from that, I'm going to use this advice from Dungeon Magazine next time I DM:
"Use the DCs provided on page 180 of the Player's Handbook to allow players to identify the monsters their characters face. To speed play, consider using passive check results: Write down the highest passive check result for Arcana, Dungeoneering, Nature and Religion skills among your PCs, and consult those at the start of each encounter, passing out the monster names as initiative ir rolled."
I think it's a good advice, and since I didn't want to have PC's stats written all over the place, I did a Stat Tracker for:
-Passive Checks.
-Defenses.
And a couple of additional things like the deity and alignment, which I think most DMs (at least I know I do) don't pay too much attention.

Here's what I did, hope it helps for passive monster checks:

 

[Sadrik]

When I DM, I usually use the skills associated with the Lore of the monster for all its information (lore, name, type, resistances, etc.) but if I consider that another skill could be used, I just allow it. For example: the MM1 says that for Liches you have to use Religion, but SOOOO many wizards have gone through that path (historically) that using Arcana, to me, makes sense. Other examples:
-Mind Flayers > Dungeoneering (and also Arcana).
-Construcs > I think most of them call for an Arcana check, but I allow Dungeoneering as well.

Nice work on the card!
I think I agree the best way is to simply ad hoc it.
And going with these general guidelines:
Arcana – magical beasts and outer planar creatures
Dungeoneering – Aberrants and natural underground beasts and humanoids
Heal - Humanoids, especially physiology related inquiries
History – Humanoids, especially their history and culture
Nature – Origins: Beasts, humanoids and monster from the wilderness
Religion – Origins: Undead and religious outer planar creatures

 

[kevkas]

Sadrik:
Does Heal apply to monster knowledge checks??? I don't remember seen it as a knowledge skill (at least it isn't in the PHB).

If you are using it that way as a house rule, I think it's a good approach to allow it for Humanoid looking (and type) monsters, but I would only apply it for gaining knowledge about vulnerabilities and resistances... the other info just doesn't make much sense to me (at least through the use of that skill).

 

[Sadrik]

Sadrik:
Does Heal apply to monster knowledge checks??? I don't remember seen it as a knowledge skill (at least it isn't in the PHB).

If you are using it that way as a house rule, I think it's a good approach to allow it for Humanoid looking (and type) monsters, but I would only apply it for gaining knowledge about vulnerabilities and resistances... the other info just doesn't make much sense to me (at least through the use of that skill).

Heal and History do not apply to monster knowledge checks in 4e. I added these into the mix for the following reasons: In 3e and 2e, I have used heal checks to give information about creatures physiology and how creatures died and things of that nature. I wanted to include that case in the guidelines as well. History of course should have some information about the various creatures and things that interact normally with the civilized parts of the world. That just seems obvious.